Talk:Hess Agreement
I really hope Walsh mischaracterized the agreement or omitted something. It's so glaringly transparent that Germany's the only winner in the agreement as he described it. Hitler played Chamberlain and Daladier in OTL because they wanted to avoid a war so badly they thought it was worth sacrificing an ally, given that the Germans could not use the annexation to threaten the West. Now they're sacrificing half a dozen allies, leaving Germany with several new acquisitions which it can use to threaten the West, and they don't get peace out of it. I can't imagine anyone with the political savvy to win an election falling for something like that. :It may be that the Hess Agreement made it clear that Germany would keep fighting in the West if France and Britain didn't join the USSR war. ::Quite possibly, but Germany was actually falling back prior to the ceasefire, and it didn't really have a way to say "If hostilities resume we'll come out and hit you a whole lot harder!" They weren't sitting on a huge reserve or anything. So the West really had nothing to lose by saying no. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:26, August 1, 2012 (UTC) :::True, but Chamberlain and Daladier fell for Hitler's bullshit consistently in OTL and seem to have done so thus far. TR (talk) 20:14, August 1, 2012 (UTC) :It's also worth remembering that in OTL, Chamberlain and Daladier came home from Munich to thunderous applause and accolades from their respective peoples. While HT never directly says so, I am inclined to think that the British and French people (especially the latter) were less than enthusiastic about going to war just because some German got killed by some Eastern European nut (been there, done that). Any peace that took the civilian populations of both countries out of immediate harm's way is probably going to be just fine with said civilians. TR (talk) 16:34, August 1, 2012 (UTC) ::I could see the desire for peace making the two electorates feel that way, but their countries aren't at peace. The people in northeastern France are no longer occupied, so they must be thrilled, but everyone else is really no better off. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:26, August 1, 2012 (UTC) :::Objectively, no, but they probably perceive themselves as being better off (no more German invasion, no more German air raids, and the USSR is so far away), and short-sightedness accounts for a number of poor decisions throughout history. TR (talk) 20:14, August 1, 2012 (UTC) On an unrelated note, writing about the opposition to the Agreement inside Parliament made me realize that HT omitted some relatively important info last year. We heard about a vote of No Confidence in which Chamberlain's government was attacked by Liberals and Labour as well as some disaffected Tories. But Chamberlain's government at the time was not a purely Conservative affair. The Liberals and Labour had both split into dueling factions in the '35 election; the majorities of both parties' MPs were in Opposition, but minorities were in Government. Labour formally expelled the twenty or so MPs who joined the government, and the purged members formed the National Labour Party to stand for their seats. The Liberal split was a bit more ambiguous, but at least some people thought of the National Liberals as separate from the Liberals, even after the Liberal leadership joined Churchill's all-party coalition. So did the National Liberals and National Labour continue to support Chamberlain in the confidence vote that followed the Big Switch, and are they now supporting Wilson? Or did they go into Opposition and reunite with their old comrades? Chamberlain wouldn't have needed a coalition in 1940; the Conservatives held a majority of seats, but a fairly slim one, and if the coalition broke up and enough Conservatives to be worth mentioning defected, Chamberlain would have had a hell of a time holding on. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:27, August 1, 2012 (UTC) :A quicky review of history shows that the Liberal Nationals did merge into the Conservatives in 1968, and that throughout their history, they tended to follow the Conservative line far more than the Liberal line. Certain of their leaders during the war in OTL, such as John Simon, were allies of Chamberlain's (and Simon was pro-appeasement). :National Labor seemed pretty much to exist solely to tout how Labour MPs could still achieve Labor goals in a Conservative majority government. So I'd suggest that the Liberal Nationals, most of whom tended towards being Tories anyway, kept the faith with Chamberlain and then Wilson. That could off-set the Cartland Tories. National Labour saw a split, with some staying with Chamberlain/Wilson, and others returning to the Opposition. :I guess that fits the canon, anyway. TR (talk) 16:34, August 1, 2012 (UTC) ::Yeah, that works. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:26, August 1, 2012 (UTC) On the article, the only comment I have for now is that I recall a converstion (between Luc Harcourt and his sgt. I think) to the effect the Big Switch was unpopular within the ranks since many were socialists but the generals, a more conservative lot, were for it. ML4E (talk) 19:02, August 1, 2012 (UTC) :Oh yes, I remember that. I'll put it in. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:26, August 1, 2012 (UTC)